noting that the height of the luminous zone (Eq.

(6)) will double as a result of the lower estimate of

the emissive power. The quantity E f H remains the same, thus the prediction of radiative flux in
the far-field remains the same. The range of emissive powers between 50 kW/m 2 and 100 kW/m2
is not arbitrary. Many researchers have made emissive power measurements of large pool fires that
fall in this range. It is a difficult measurement to make because in reality the emissive power is both
spatially and temporally varying. The choices of 100 kW/m2 for near-field hazard calculations and
50 kW/m2 for the evaluation of thermal barriers are intended to yield conservative estimates of
Acceptable Separation Distance (ASD).

3.2 Hazardous Gases

Fire scenarios involving combustible gases vary widely, from a pool fire of a liquified gas, like
LNG or LPG, to a flare formed by burning vapors escaping a storage tank, to a fireball following
the release of a large amount of gas that subsequently ignites. Because it is difficult to predict the
structure of the fire, it is important to employ a methodology for predicting the thermal radiation
flux from the fire. The simplest method of calculating the thermal radiation, known as the point
source model, is to estimate the heat release rate of the fire, assume a fraction of the total energy
is released in the form of thermal radiation, and then divide this radiated energy over the surface
area of a sphere whose radius is the distance from the center of the fire to the target


r Q
q
(7)
4 r2
Essentially, this method assumes that all of the thermal radiation emanates from a point. For targets
greater than several fire diameters away, this assumption is reasonably good. However, at closer
distances, the assumption is not valid, but it is conservative because it assumes all of the energy is
concentrated at a point rather than spread over the height and width of the fire, as was assumed by
the solid flame model above.

Equation 7 requires two pieces of information: the radiative fraction, r , and the total HRR, Q.
Because gaseous fires are often in the form of flares, it is not appropriate to assume that r decreases
with fire diameter as in the case of liquid fires above. Flares are substantially more luminous than
liquid pool fires because the oxygen is better able to penetrate the combustion region and thus the
combustion is more efficient and less smoke is formed in the process. A conservative estimate of
is not as
r is 0.20, appropriate for a wide range of gaseous fuels [4]. The estimate of the HRR, Q,
easy as it is for liquids because more often than not there is no fire diameter because there is no
liquid pool even for liquified gaseous fuels like LNG and LPG. It is more appropriate in this case
to estimate a mass burning rate, m,
and then multiply this by a heat of combustion (see Table 2)

(8)
Q m Hc
Because of the uncertainty inherent in predicting the hazard associated with pressurized storage
of gases, the consideration of thermal barriers as a means of lessening the radiation flux to distant
targets is difficult. Liquified gases may form a pool that erupts in fire, or the gases may vaporize
so quickly that a fireball or turbulent jet fire forms. In the former case, a wall surrounding the fire
may block a substantial fraction of the radiation energy, whereas in the latter case, a wall will do
little to lessen the impact of thermal radiation on surrounding targets. Consequently, consideration
should not be given to thermal barriers when assessing the thermal radiation hazard from fires of
pressurized storage tanks or pipelines of combustible gases.
10